TRAMWAY FINANCE.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20898, 4 July 1933, Page 13

TRAMWAY FINANCE.

TO THE eDITOII Or lag FRE3M Sir,—The Tramway Board's reply to my letter ol June 13 is rather astute, in that it sets up once more a "straw man" to demolish it again with replies from Wellington officials to try to prove wrong statements which I am supposed to have made, but which I did not maKe. I did not at any time make a mistake ol £260,000 in Wellington's loan liability, nor did I at any time include in Wellington reserve nguies the sum of £260,000, used in the redemption ol' loans, it was just because I Knew as well as the Tramway Board that this sum had been paid to redeem debentures and so could not be included in Wellington's reserves that I gave the net loan liability for Wellington (see letter of June 5) while quoting the gross loan liability for Christchurch, and explained that the equivalent of Wellington's £260,000 loan redemption was given credit for in the Christchurch reserve figures. My loan liability and reserve figures were stated in the proper way and as shown in the balance-sheets. The Tramway Board will repeatedly misrepresent my statements. I did not say that density of population had no bearing, but that it did not affect the position to the extent that the board has frequently inferred. The population of Wellington served by trams is less than Christchurch, yet gives nearly twice the service, and carries more passengers a car mile. The density of population in Wellington is greater than Dunedin, yet Dunedin carries more passengers, so density is not the answer to the riddle. The board returns again to its excuse of greatly increased capital expenditure that Wellington similarlyincreased its capital This is granted, Wellington wisely, Christchurch unwisely. Wellington laid new lines, increased its cars and increased the service rendered, and increased the number of passengers carried. Christchurch put its money into lands, buildings, and cars, which were not reauired gave less service, and .carried not more passengers but 9,000,000 less shows that trailer miles decreased at 'a greater ratio than pasipntrers carried, but I showed that we carried more than 9,000,000 less passengers requiring 1,300,000 car miles, which ir hp. If as much acain as our

highest trailer miles, and partly goes to show that we could abolish trailer miles altogether. Dunedin very soon got rid of its trailers, and otners get on without them. As the board is not disposed to carry on this controversy this way, I will not break further ground, but take another course when the figures for 1932-33 are available in a month or two. It may be noted that the board has now set up a committee to go into the matter of loan conversion and redemption, as advocated by me. If it will follow this up by a faster and more frequent service with lower fares, it should carry more passengers and redeem its finance?. This is the coursfe that has been followed successfully by the English, Canadian, and New Zealand railways.—Yours, etc., TRANSPORT. June 30, 1933. tin reply to this letter the chairman of the Christchurch Tramway Board says that he intimated in his last note that he did not intend continuing the controversy, and now refers anyone interested to all his replies to "Transport's" previous remarks.]